Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

"as a boxer how do you rate him ?."

I don't think there's any doubt that he was among the very best of his time. But, when you look at the list of opponents he defeated after winning the title from Burns I don't think his resume is really all that impressive:

* Philadelphia Jack O'Brien - Light heavy past his prime in a no-decision 6 rounder.
* Tony Ross - 6 rounder
* Al Kaufman
* Stanley Ketchel - Blown up middleweight
* James Jeffries - Washed up 35 year old who came out of 4-5 year retirement (though not Johnson's fault Jeffries didn't fight him earlier)
* Fireman Jim Flynn
* Battling Jim Johnson
* Frank Moran
* Jack Murray
* Jess Willard

I'm curious as to what some would consider his greatest victory, not only during his title reign but over his career.

 

"Funny enough Sam best win of his career was actually below that weight as you list as his best weight. Furthermore, you are forgetting that Johnson also weighed considerably less than what he listed as his best weight. So, let's not act like Johnson was at his best weight. Also, you say whether it was easier or not, umm it WAS that easy. The ringside reports all make this abundantly clear. Sam himself said that was the only real beating he ever received. So don't act like it's not dertermined whether it was convincing or easy.. it was JUST THAT. There were many factors involved in Johnson not taking the fight.. The purse being inadequate.. The mann act issues... nobody wanting to see a black vs black hw fight for the title. If there were lynchings over Johnson beating jeffries.. and some of American was calling for a great white hope.. Where is the money in a black vs. black fight for the title? Furthermore, Johnson already whipped him, and proven superior, so maybe he didn't see a need. Point is all these reasons seem to be valid enough on why a fight was never made. Hopefully, in your book, you give Johnson his due for beating sam from pillar to post and at least remain objective on that part.. cause clearly you've let your bias come to the top here. "

Geez, where to start here. First, I guess I'll say that it comes to no surprise to learn you haven't read my book about Langford. If you did, I doubt you'd find anything to complain about in terms of what I wrote about the sole fight between he and Johnson. It includes the statement from Sam that it was the only real beating he ever recieved and it wouldn't surprise me if unbeknownst to yourself my book is the actual source of that quote that you use here. I don't believe anyone who read the book could fairly say I don't provide an objective account of that fight. That said, I can't help but think it might not have been quite as easy as many reported if Johnson would later refer to Sam as the "toughest little sonofabitch that ever lived" and then write that "he had the greatest right cross the ring ever saw, past or present..." in an article he penned on April 16, 1929 in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the comment about Sam's best win of his career being below a weight I list as his best weight. But, if you're suggesting one of the biggest wins of his career was while he fought at much lower weight I have to wonder if you're referring to a win over a great smaller man of similar size and weight at the time.

I think it would make sense to most that a man who had physically matured and grown into a light heavyweight would most likely carry a greater punch and represent a more formidable challenge for a man like Johnson, reglardess of whether he weighed 190 or 205, than a youngser weighing 140-156 pounds would against a 190 lb. heavyweight.

I'm not forgetting a thing about what Johnson weighed in his fight against Langford (190) and never made any claim whatsoever as to what was his best fighting weight so don't try to make it sound as though I did. I said nothing whatsoever about what his best fighting weight was.

You can throw out as many reasons as you like for Johnson not fighting Langford again as the heavyweight title holder. I remain convinced that the PRIMARY reason was the one he admitted to Hugh McIntosh. And I quote McIntosh: "Say, Mister Mac, you're only wasting your time talking to me. I don't want to fight that little smoke. He's got a chance against anyone in the world. I'm the first black champion and I'm going to be the last." And as the man who trained both fighters in Australia, Duke Mullins, said, "Johnson was never anxious to talk about Langford and normally changed the subject quickly whenever Sam's name was brought up. However, one day when dismissing Langford from a conversation, Johnson said there were dozens of easy money white men for him to meet without having to fight a tough guy like Langford." While Johnson told Duke that he felt Joe Jeannette was the toughest man he ever saw, he admitted to him that Langford was the most dangerous."

And, THAT, I maintain is the PRIMARY REASON that Johnson never fought the man again.

 

Ok, I was wondering if you might be referring to his victory over Gans. I agree that has to be considered one of his greatest victories. I just don't understand how it's relevant here since both men were under 140 pounds.

I really do believe he was at his best as a light heavyweight. And, I don't believe he could have continued to cut weight and fight at middleweight after a certain point in his career. He basically outgrew that weight division as he continued to physically mature.

To answer your question, yes, in my research I did find sources that claimed Sam was slower as he put on weight but to the best of my recollection that is referring to weight beyond the 170-180 lb. range. I think he carried that weight well and that it's weight above 185 or so that it could have adversely affected his performance in the ring. He definately became a chubby and portly fighter beyond 1913 or later.

I still wouldn't agree that it's a wash if Jack put on more weight himself for the reason I already stated, i.e., I like a light heavyweight's chances against a 205 pound heavyweight better than I do a man weighing 140-156 against a 190 pounder. But, this is getting a little of track here. I wasn't intending to get into a big debate about the outcome of a second meeting, only maintaining that Sam deserved the opportunity and was denied it by Johnson.

I also never said Johnson was scared, just maintaining that he ducked him for easier and less dangerous opponents when Langford was the most deserving. Yes, to your question about Mullins opinion and I included that in my book about Langford. Gotta run.

 

"You've twice stated that Johnson weighed 190lbs for the Langford fight, please provide a source for this as I have read countless times, in many papers that he weighed 185lbs for the fight .

Over a year and a half after the Langford fight Johnson only weighed 184lbs for a bout with Jim Flynn.

Likewise I understood that Langford scaled 156lbs for their fight, are you now saying you have definite proof this was not so?

No one doubts your objectivity regarding your book on Langford,which has excellent reviews, however I have to say your epiphets about Johnson show you are less than objective about him.

Fighters have ducked out of contracts since time immemorial. Ray Robinson was notorious for holding a gun to promoters heads at the last minute ,demanding a hike in his purse,No one referred to his as a scumbag.

I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Langford did not merit a world ttile chance or that Johnson preferred to take easier prey for comparable money. That's not the issue, what has been established, at least to my satisfaction, is that there were many factors involved in the mix ,and many reasons why they did not meet for the title.
Johnson was 30 years old when he got his chance at the title .Jeffries could have fought him but didn't ,Burns made him wait until his purse was big enough to soothe the thrashing he knew he had coming.
Ketchel could have fought Langford.so could Burns have, they didn't, is that Johnson's fault too? "

185 or 190, I'm not sure it makes much difference. I only used 190 as a point of reference in my last post because it was used by someone else in the prior post. I see now that the Police Gazette reported 185. The Boston Herald said "Langford was nearly 40 pounds lighter." In an article Sam penned about the fight he referred to Johnson as 190 pounds. In his c1910 French biography 'Mes Combats' Johnson says "I weighed 190 pounds and Langford only 138.' An unknown newspaper source and article titled "In the Wake of the News" by David Condon says Johnson lost a $500 wager that he made that Langford wouldn't last the distance "against a foe who, at about 190, held a 30 pound advantage." So, for the sake of argument go with 185.

I don't have definite proof that Langford didn't weigh as much as 156. I said I've seen it reported anywhere from as low as 138 to as much as 156.

I disagree that I am not objective about Johnson, we just have a much differing opinion as far as I'm concerned. I could just as easily argue that some of Johnson's supporters aren't very objective, or tend to view him thru rose colored glasses, at least from my standpoint.

Ok, so maybe calling him a scumbag was going too far. Suffice to say I don't have a very high opinion of him.

I can agree with your point that there were other factors involved in Johnson failing to meet Langford again but I maintain my stance as to what I believe the primary reason was. I don't understand your point at all about Ketchel and Burns, I never said a thing about any other fighters failing to fight Sam having anything whatsoever to do with Johnson.

 

P.S. - For all you Langford fans on here, a softcover version of the book should be available on Amazon sometime this month on a print-on-demand basis and Kindle sometime in the near future as well

 

"Lets talk turkey, you picked as high a weight for Johnson as would be swallowed and as low a weight for Langford as you could. It has nothing to do with "the sake of argument ,"and everything to do with portraying Johnson in as negative light as possible, and Langford in as positive a light as possible . We are not stupid .
You know very well that Johson scaled 185 and that Langford scaled 156. You have no doubt read the fight reports, as have the rest of us.

You also know, or you should, that Johnson had nothing to do with Mes Combats ,and that it is a load of bollocks ghosted by an unnamed hack, and three times translated. I thought better of you."

You can certainly be a downright disagreeable sort at times can't you. You're accusation in the first paragraph above is absolute B.S. I believe I clearly stated that I have read accounts of Sam weighing as little as 138 - 156 pounds. I stated that simply as a point of fact. I've read various accounts of their weights. I tend to believe 156 might be more likely but I really don't know. Unlike yourself, I'm not sure what the two mean each weighed for the fight. And, the weights I threw out there had nothing to do whatsoever with any intention on my part to portray Johnson in as negative a light as possible, while portaying Langford in as positive a light as possible. But whatever you choose to believe about my intention is of no particular concern of mine at this point.

Johnson having nothing at all to do with Mes Combats is news to me. What is your source of that information? And, it's only one of the sources I mentioned that threw out the 190 pound figure. But, like I said, I don't care if he weighed 185 or 190, I personally don't think it matters that much.

Geez, I make a statement about a reported range of weights for Langford from 140 - 156 and you respond with this: "Likewise I understood that Langford scaled 156lbs for their fight, are you now saying you have definite proof this was not so?" How on earth do you take what I posted and come back with a question about me having definite proof it was not so? I never said I had definate proof one way or another, I merely shared the fact that there were varying weights reported.

So, you're convinced the weights for the fight were 156 & 185. That could very well be correct. I don't know that for a fact, apparently you accept those figures as fact. Those weights, if in fact accurate, wouldn't change my stance on anything I've posted in this thread.

"We are not stupid."

I'm beginning to wonder about one of you